So today, I was browsing the final report from the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission that was released on Friday. Basically, I wanted to see if the commission, which was formed in the wake of the mass shooting at the elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, would recommend any real solutions that would reduce gun-related violence.

I was curious, would the commission take an objective approach and do some actual research into the relationship between guns and crime or would it start with the mindset that ‘guns are evil and the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners should be limited in every way possible but not totally restricted as we need to have some plausible deniability should someone (justifiably) accuse us of having a pathological hatred for one’s Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.’

After reading the report, it’s quite clear that the commission took the latter approach. It didn’t investigate the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. I say that because had it really examined the facts the commission would have recognized some basic truths that the vast majority of gun owners are aware of:

1. There are more good guys with guns than bad guys with guns.
2. Good guys use guns to thwart crime more frequently than bad guys use guns to commit crime.
3. More guns does not increase crime rates.
4. Expanding concealed carry rights has the potential to reduce crime rates.
5. “Shall not be infringed” means something!

Being mindful of these truths, there’s no way that an intellectually honest commission would put forth 18 recommendations targeting gun ownership. While I’m not going to discuss all 18, here is a list of the top five dumbest in my opinion:

RECOMMENDATION NO. 2. Require registration, including a certificate of registration, for every firearm. This certificate of registration should be issued subsequent to the completion of a background check and is separate and distinct from a permit to carry.

WHY IT’S DUMB: Well, this is not only dumb, it’s dangerous. David Kopel, in an article for the NRA’s 1st Freedom, does a pretty good job explaining why a registration mandate is a horrible idea.

“In truth, gun registration would have done absolutely nothing to stop the Sandy Hook murderer who killed his mother and stole her lawfully purchased firearms. Nor would it have stopped the killer who attacked Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, or the Virginia Tech murderer, both of whom bought their guns in stores,” wrote Kopel.

“But gun registration is very good for one thing—confiscation,” he continued. “And even more immediately, gun registration is ideal to bolster the quickly growing public persecution of gun owners.”

RECOMMENDATION NO. 4. Institute a ban on the sale, possession, or use of any magazine or ammunition feeding device in excess of 10 rounds except for military and police use. In proposing this recommendation, the Commission recognized that certain sporting events at times involve the use of higher capacity magazines. However, the consensus of the Commission was that the spirit of sportsmanship can be maintained with lower capacity magazines.

WHY IT’S DUMB: First off, how many of the members on the Commission are true sportsmen? How many have attended competitions and shoot on a regular basis? My guess would be zero. So, what we have here is a bunch of imbeciles making judgments about an activity they know nothing about. To draw a random analogy, it’s as if an NBA panel ruled that the spirit of professional basketball could be maintained without the three-point line. It’s ridiculous. Games evolve! So do shooting sports!

There is a whole constitutional component to this as well, which is magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition are commonly owned and widely popular, suggesting that any limits on their possession would be considered unreasonable under the Constitution (Scalia touches on this below, in an oblique way).

RECOMMENDATION NO. 9. Limit the amount of ammunition that can be purchased at any given time.

WHY IT’S DUMB: What the hell is this going to do? As it’s been said a million times before, criminals will find a way to obtain arms and ammo.

But even if you don’t believe in that cliche, consider what Criminologist James Alan Fox had to say on the ability for mass killers to stockpile equipment in preparation for an attack.

“Most mass killers kill people they know, with a clear-cut motive. They typically plan their crimes in advance, often weeks or months in advance. They are calm, deliberate and determined to get justice for what they perceive to be unfair treatment,” Fox told The Daily Beast.

In a Boston.com article, Fox discussed how gun laws will not stop a determined sociopath from attempting to take innocent lives.

“Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally,” wrote Fox.

“People simply cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner,” he continued. “Besides, would-be mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends.”

RECOMMENDATION NO. 10. Prohibit the possession, sale or transfer of any firearm capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading. This prohibition would extend to military-style firearms as well as handguns. Law enforcement and military would be exempt from this ban.

WHY IT’S DUMB: Basically what they’re saying is that any semiautomatic handgun or long gun that can accept a detachable magazine should be banned. It’s crazy. But short of completely disarming America, it’s the wet dream of gun control advocates and government elites. They would love nothing more than to see a populace that was relegated to limited-capacity firearms vis a vis Europe or Australia.

And much like the argument I made with the magazines, banning these firearms is a constitutionally dubious proposition as well. Semi-automatic weapons are commonly owned and widely popular. The AR-15 have been America’s most popular rifle for years now. It’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court makes it clear that banning such firearms is unconstitutional.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 17. Any person seeking a license to sell, purchase or carry any type of firearm in the state should be required to pass a suitability screening process.

WHY IT’S DUMB: What the hell is a “suitability screening process”? I’ll tell you what it is, it’s an arbitrary means by which the government can deny one his or her Second Amendment rights.

Provided a license applicant is not a “prohibited persons” (felon, minor, mental defective, domestic abuser, etc.), there is no reason for that individual to be denied a permit. Plain and simple.

Yet, the commission believes that one must be subjected to a whole evaluation process, which would include a “mental health test,” before one is “fit” to carry a firearm. Absurd!

CONCLUSION

I thought these were the five dumbest recommendations. Though, I could easily be wrong. There were some other daisies included on the list as well, from more registration schemes to bullet engraving to background checks, among others. I’m not sure how much time the commission put into drafting the 277-page report. But I can tell you that it was a utter and complete waste of time.

Stopping crime starts with the family. If we want a safer America, we need smarter parents. We need parents who are willing to actually raise their children, not merely bring them into existence. Were we as a society to solve this dilemma we’d drastically reduce crime rates. Perhaps that’s what this commission should have focused on.

Yet, no matter what we do, evil will still exist. Consequently, free people need a means to protect themselves from evil people and evil governments. Our founders and framers were keenly aware this truth, which is why we have a Second Amendment. It’s too bad that the commission is either too blind, too lazy or too ideologically driven to recognize that too.

Katie Pavlich published a video on YouTube where makes a really good argument for women being armed for self defense. Men are inherently significantly stronger than women and women would be at the mercy of a bad man, but the gun is the great equalizer. If all guns disappeared overnight, bad guys who would victimize women would have free reign.

Stop publishing the names / faces of the ass-clowns doing the mass murders. All have admitted wanting “to be famous”, and this is their way of getting their 15 minutes. Deny them the publicity. Start referring to all shooters as “a douchebag” or perhaps “ass-bag” and NO PICTURES. This will stop most of them before they get started. I would also suggest graves marked as the same for those killed. Knowing they will be buried under a big “Douchebag-Born ?-?-???? and died doing a stupid act ?-?-????”. Stop the Press from glorifying these ass bags.

“I was curious, would the commission take an objective approach and do some actual research into the relationship between guns and crime or would it start with the mindset that ‘guns are evil and the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners should be limited in every way possible but not totally restricted as we need to have some plausible deniability should someone (justifiably) accuse us of having a pathological hatred for one’s Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.’”

LOLOLOL. Let’s see… How can we ban all guns without making it look like we’re trying to ban all guns?

CT Governor Dan Malloy locked down ALL Death Certificates across CT to conceal Sandy Hoax. How long can CT keep this Sandy Hook scam going?http://i.imgur.com/WAQ3S8J.jpg

Adam Lanza is fake. He was created in PhotoShop to seize AR15 rifles and attack Home Schooling, since Adam Lanza was supposedly Home Schooled by Nancy Lanza.http://i.imgur.com/FBMPIFW.jpg

During his press conference at Sandy Hook, Governor Malloy (CT) said he was “Spoken to that something like this might happen” in his State. In other words, he KNEW the Sandy Hook “shooting” was pre-planned. Yet Malloy is still using Sandy Hoax to push gun confiscation and attack Home Schooling.http://i.imgur.com/Q7N3jnM.jpg

May I suggest that it would be a big 1st step if we as gun owners did not buy into the P. C. phraseology. Example,
“Gun Violence” Violence committed with a firearm is just that and only that. If the same acts were committed with a knife or bat would the P. C. crowd refer to it as knife or bat violence? I think not. And while were at it (and this one is a toughee!), my firearms are not weapons. I own shotguns, handguns, rifles, but no weapons. The military have weapons, criminals possess weapons, I have firearms! Think before you open your mouth and give the gun grabbers more fodder for their agenda. Don’t but into their line buy using their terminology.

Mr. Blannelberry: You write, “There were some other daisies included on the list as well, ….”. The phrase isn’t “daisies”, it’s “doozies” meaning spectacular. It’s taken from a reference to the Dusenberg motor cars which, at the time of their manufacture, were considered to be the finest motor cars made in the nation (they were). They were nicknamed “Doozies” and the phrase came into the language meaning the best or most outstanding. Further transgressions will result in additional admonishments.

Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! I have it! The perfect solution! Bullet engraving! Engrave the name of the purchaser on the bottom of every bullet. That means you have to order all your ammo and it would have to be engraved before manufacture in order to get your name on it. This would slow down manufacturing ammo, enable the tracking of purchases, and make the price prohibitively expensive for most gun owners! Oops! I hope Obama doesn’t read this page!

A team of armed marines would have stopped the killings at sandy hook, or even a couple of teachers or janitors with a loaded hand gun. a gun ban for the state does nothing. did we pay this bunch for their “reccommendations??”

You know, they make me not even care about Sandy Hook anymore, i know i don’t mean that literally, but it angers me. How in hell are you suppose to defend yourself against a government if need be with 10 rounds anyway. I would think even they would agree government needs to be kept in check. You know i may agree with new gun law change as long as it’s also written in there, that if a felon ever breaks one of these laws, it would IMMEDIATELY reverse back to the way it was prior. put that in and we will see the truth who really are the law breaker. This is a reason why i have 11 buried guns and over 23000 rounds of ammo buried in 11 different places..
This is the reason why we left the Democrat party…

Let me understand this. You are listing the top 5 dumb ideas to come from this, and YOU stoop to their level also?
In recommendation #4, you fail to research IF they are sportsmen, and then condemn all them as imbeciles?

While I agree OUR rights are under attack, failing to actually report a story without making inflammatory comments or actual research into the people you are reporting on is just wrong and as ignorant.

I love my rights and this country. Just as us gun owners need to show respect, restraint, and common sense with our firearms,
reporters that make use of the First Amendment should do the same. If not, all we get is a pissing match with a bunch of swinging dicks like me have now.

The ONLY way to deter mass killings is to make the target as threatening as possible to the potential perpetrator. There must be armed protecters at most public venues. The easiest way to do that is to make a public statement that people with concealed carry permits get a 15% admissions discount. Tell me. Would you target a venue that invited armed citizens specifically?

They are missing the biggest problem with banning something…IT DOESN’T WORK.
Doesn’t work with drugs, didn’t work with liquor, and it won’t work with guns (or magazines).

Then we have people that agree we should be allowed to defend ourselves, but doesn’t think anyone needs an AR15 type weapon. (Even some that claim to be gun supporters.)
After WWII they had the Battle of Athens, (they even made a movie about this), WWII vets broke into the National Guard Armory to acquire enough weapons to stop corruption in their elections.
Then later on we have had the LA riots & Watts riot, mobs of people looting & killing. And more recently Katrina, again with mobs looting & killing, and people claiming the only way they kept the looters away was with large capacity magazines.
Just because “you” don’t “need” a AR15 now doesn’t mean they aren’t needed by anyone at anytime, and history PROVES that!!

The 2nd amendment was written by our forefathers with the idea in mind to give all citizens the right to self protection and preservation. One of their main reasons was to allow the citizens the ability to fight against a tyrannical government should the need arise. During the time it was written the state of art weapons of the day were all flint lock type muskets and rifles owned by both the military and citizens alike. Many would argue that still today we should still only be able to own either flint lock or musket type arms. However one very important aspect of the 2nd amendment gets overlooked and that is the fact of the militia. The militia are to be made up of common everyday citizens who when called upon were to report with their privately owned arms in order to be able to fight. Now, any military who might possibly invade for which a militia might be called upon to fight, are armed with fully automatic weapons, grenades, bazookas, rockets and just about any other kind of weapon you can imagine. Therefore, the 2nd amendment should also now be interpreted to mean that any weapon issued to a military for which a militia might be called upon to fight against should also be allowed to be owned by any United States citizen. After all, it was the thought during world war II that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass which kept the Japanese from even attempting to invade the United States. What everybody seems to fail to recognize is the fact that it doesn’t matter how many stupid laws you have on the books. Bad people are still going to do bad things, and a rifle or a pistol regardless of how many rounds it is capable of firing before reloading, if it’s 2 or 100, is still only a tool. The tool is not what does the bad things, it’s the person operating the tool. (case in point) There are more people killed each year by being bludgeoned to death with hammers, ball bats, and fists than there are with firearms of all kinds each year. There are none of those items to my personal knowledge which require registration or background checks prior to being owned.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 2. Require registration, including a certificate of registration, for every firearm. This certificate of registration should be issued subsequent to the completion of a background check and is separate and distinct from a permit to carry.

Registration does nothing to deter criminals from getting guns because they can not be prosecuted for not registering their firearms. It violates their 5th amendment rights. Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)

RECOMMENDATION NO. 2. Require registration, including a certificate of registration, for every firearm. This certificate of registration should be issued subsequent to the completion of a background check and is separate and distinct from a permit to carry.

We should take this one a step further and include the acceptable types of usage for the firearms on the registration certificate. We would want to be very explicit in omitting undesirable acts like murder and homicide.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 4. Institute a ban on the sale, possession, or use of any magazine or ammunition feeding device in excess of 10 rounds except for military and police use. In proposing this recommendation, the Commission recognized that certain sporting events at times involve the use of higher capacity magazines. However, the consensus of the Commission was that the spirit of sportsmanship can be maintained with lower capacity magazines.

So they saying the acceptable number of kills for a mass murderer is ten? Allowing eleven people to be killed before a firearm has to be reloaded, possibly offering bystanders an opportunity in intervene, would be unacceptable. Ten is the magic number then, just so we’re all square with that.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 9. Limit the amount of ammunition that can be purchased at any given time.

Because no one ever stock piles ammo. There hasn’t been a box of 22LR sitting on any store shelf, in any store, in any state in this union, for more than ten minutes in the past two years. I don’t think target practice has taken a sudden upswing that would cause such a consumption so maybe there’s an expiration date that I’m unaware of.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 10. Prohibit the possession, sale or transfer of any firearm capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading. This prohibition would extend to military-style firearms as well as handguns. Law enforcement and military would be exempt from this ban.

First there’s the obvious ambiguity of this recommendation. 1)Firearms themselves are incapable of firing any rounds, they require human intervention. 2)Even with intervention, all firearms can be loaded with only a single round at any given moment and must be reloaded for each firing. Multi-round magazines merely facilitate rapid reloading.
Then there’s the problem with the undefined “military-style” adjective. Since even flintlock muskets were at one time state-of-the-art military issue, the term is highly subjective. Virtually every firearm used by civilians since the start of this country came to be as a result of returning soldiers wanting to continue using that which had become familiar to them. Which firearm isn’t “military-style”?

RECOMMENDATION NO. 17. Any person seeking a license to sell, purchase or carry any type of firearm in the state should be required to pass a suitability screening process.

Ok, let’s start with our politicians, they all either own firearms personally or indirectly through body guards.

The dumbest thing about this commission’s recpmmendations is that NOT ONE of them addressed increasing security at schools, whether by SROs or armed teachers or stronger entry defenses to keep the gunman out. Not one. And not one of the recommendations would have stopped Adam Lanza, who stole his firearms, and for whom it would not have mattered if he was limited to ten round magazines–he was the only one in the building with a gun, and he was facing down terrified children. Or the Aurora killer or Loughner or Roger, all of whom acquired their firearms and ammunition lawfully, and all of whom passed background checks.
Pure political theater.